Concordance of p16INK4a and E6*I mRNA among HPV-DNA-Positive Oropharyngeal, Laryngeal, and Oral Cavity Carcinomas from the ICO International Study

Simple Summary The utility of a diagnostic algorithm for the detection of HPV-driven oral cavity (OCC), oropharyngeal (OPC), and laryngeal (LC) carcinomas using HPV-DNA testing followed by p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry, taking E6*I mRNA detection as the reference standard, was assessed in HPV-DNA-positive formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples from 29 countries. The concordance of p16(INK4a) and E6*I mRNA among 78, 257, and 51 HPV-DNA-positive OCC, OPC, and LC, respectively, was moderate to substantial in OCC and OPC but only fair in LC. A different p16(INK4a) expression pattern was observed in those cases HPV-DNA-positive for types other than HPV16, as compared to HPV16-positive cases. We concluded that the diagnostic algorithm of HPV-DNA testing followed by p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry might be helpful in the diagnosis of HPV-driven OCC and OPC, but not LC. Our study provides new insights into the use HPV-DNA, p16(INK4a), and HPV-E6*I mRNA for diagnosing an HPV-driven head and neck carcinoma. Background: Tests or test algorithms for diagnosing HPV-driven oral cavity and laryngeal head and neck carcinomas (HNC) have not been yet validated, and the differences among oral cavity and laryngeal sites have not been comprehensively evaluated. We aimed to assess the utility of a diagnostic algorithm for the detection of HPV-driven oral cavity (OCC), oropharyngeal (OPC) and laryngeal (LC) carcinomas using HPV-DNA testing followed by p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry, taking E6*I mRNA detection as the reference standard. Methods: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded OCC, OPC, and LC carcinomas were collected from pathology archives in 29 countries. All samples were subjected to histopathological evaluation, DNA quality control, and HPV-DNA detection. All HPV-DNA-positive samples (including 78 OCC, 257 OPC, and 51 LC out of 3680 HNC with valid HPV-DNA results) were also tested for p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry and E6*I mRNA. Three different cutoffs of nuclear and cytoplasmic staining were evaluated for p16(INK4a): (a) >25%, (b) >50%, and (c) >= 70%. The concordance of p16(INK4a) and E6*I mRNA among HPV-DNA-positive OCC, OPC, and LC cases was assessed. Results: A total of 78 OCC, 257 OPC, and 51 LC were HPV-DNA-positive and further tested for p16(INK4a) and E6*I mRNA. The percentage of concordance between p16(INK4a) (cutoff >= 70%) and E6*I mRNA among HPV-DNA-positive OCC, OPC, and LC cases was 79.5% (95% CI 69.9-89.1%), 82.1% (95% CI 77.2-87.0%), and 56.9% (95% CI 42.3-71.4%), respectively. A p16(INK4a) cutoff of >50% improved the concordance although the improvement was not statistically significant. For most anatomical locations and p16(INK4a) cutoffs, the percentage of discordant cases was higher for HPV16- than HPV-non16-positive cases. Conclusions: The diagnostic algorithm of HPV-DNA testing followed by p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry might be helpful in the diagnosis of HPV-driven OCC and OPC, but not LC. A different p16(INK4a) expression pattern was observed in those cases HPV-DNA-positive for types other than HPV16, as compared to HPV16-positive cases. Our study provides new insights into the use HPV-DNA, p16(INK4a), and HPV-E6*I mRNA for diagnosing an HPV-driven HNC, including the optimal HPV test or p16(INK4a) cutoffs to be used. More studies are warranted to clarify the role of p16(INK4a) and HPV status in both OPC and non-OPC HNC

Mathematical models of cell cycle regulation

research project focuses on the analysis and modelling of protein kinase and phosphatase systems involved in the cell cycle

Organizational Guidance for the Care of Patients with Head-and-Neck Cancer in Ontario

Background: At the request of the Head and Neck Cancers Advisory Committee of Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), a working group and expert panel of clinicians with expertise in the management of head-and-neck cancer developed the present guideline. The purpose of the guideline is to provide advice about the organization and delivery of health care services for adult patients with head-and-neck cancer. Methods: This document updates the recommendations published in the Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) 2009 organizational guideline The Management of Head and Neck Cancer in Ontario. The guideline development methods included an updated literature search, internal review by content and methodology experts, and external review by relevant health care providers and potential users. Results: To ensure that all patients have access to the highest standard of care available in Ontario, the guideline establishes the minimum requirements to maintain a head-and-neck disease site program. Recommendations are made about the membership of core and extended provider teams, minimum skill sets and experience of practitioners, cancer centre–specific and practitioner-specific volumes, multidisciplinary care requirements, and unique infrastructure demands. Conclusions: The recommendations contained in this document offer guidance for clinicians and institutions providing care for patients with head-and-neck cancer in Ontario, and for policymakers and other stakeholders involved in the delivery of health care services for head-and-neck cancer

Ibero-American Expert Consensus on Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck Treatment in Patients Unable to Receive Cisplatin: Recommendations for Clinical Practice.

Cisplatin is the standard of treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) that has demonstrated efficacy, either in locally advanced disease when combined with radiotherapy at high doses, or in metastatic/recurrent disease when combined with other agents. However, the usual toxicities related to cisplatin, such as neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and hematologic toxicities, especially when high doses have been administered, have important implications in the patients' quality of life. The decision to administer cisplatin depends on several patient factors, such as age, performance status, weight loss, comorbidities, previous toxicities, chronic viral infection, or even the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In order to establish recommendations for the management of patients with SCCHN, a group of experts in medical and radiation oncology from Spain and Latin-American discussed how to identify patients who are not candidates for cisplatin to offer them the most suitable therapeutic alternative